Ecologically Sustainable Landscape Initiative April 2014 Acknowledgements
DRAFT
Ecologically Sustainable Landscape Initiative April 2014 Acknowledgements
Portland Parks & Recreation Staff Interviewed as Stakeholders Amanda Fritz, Commissioner Dave Kahler - retired Mike Abbaté, Director Gordon Kunkle Dominic Maze Project Staff John Long Deborah Lev, Project Champion John Reed Emily Roth, Project Manager Sandra Burtzos Jaime English, Planner (now with OR State Randy Webster Parks) Mark Wilson Colleen Keyes, Editor Other Stakeholder Interviews Portland Parks & Recreation Core Team Dave Elkin - GreenWorks Sue Glenn Michelle Mathis - Michelle Mathis Lance Wright Lauren Schmitt - MIG Mart Hughes Dean Apostle - MIG Mike Carr Kathy Shearin – EMCSWCD Lynn Barlow T Fleisher – Battery Park City Parks Jenn Cairo Conservancy, Director of Horticulture Heather McKillip Brian Wethington Consultant Team – Mayer/Reed Gregory Lozovoy Ryan Carlson, Landscape Architect Don McTaggart Laura Niemi Carol Mayer/Reed, Principal
Table of Contents
Preface
Introduction Watershed Health/Ecosystem Services
Ecological Dynamic Landscapes Enhancing habitat and resiliency
Evaluation/Measurement Measuring success of ecologically sustainable landscapes
Park Staff and Public Acceptance and Education Integrating ecological landscapes into parks
Conclusion
Appendix A: Initiative Process Appendix B: Glossary of Terms Appendix C: Selected References
4/28/2014 2 Draft
Enjoying a Portland Parks & Recreation Natural Area
4/28/2014 3 Draft
Preface
Portland Parks & Recreation’s Parks 2020 Vision identifies a long term plan for improving park practices. To implement this vision, Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) develops three year strategic plans. The 2012-2015 Strategic Plan identifies three Key Result Areas. In the Key Result Area: Manage and Improve Assets, one of the Strategic Themes is Sustainability. The goal of this theme is to “Extend ecologically sustainable landscape management practices over the entire spectrum of PP&R’s green infrastructure.” The Initiative is to establish ecologically sustainable landscape goals and standards through development of a white paper that defines the elements of a sustainable PP&R landscape, including implications for future operations and maintenance (Strategic Plan 2012-15, page 20).
Presently, PP&R implements a range of sustainable landscape practices. Examples include: Integrated Pest Management Program since 1988 Irrigation Conservation Practices since 1993 Urban Forestry Management Plan 2004 Formation of City Nature to manage natural areas in 2004 First parks district to be Salmon Safe Certified 2005 48 Community Gardens for a total of 2087 plots
This initiative will build on the established ecological and sustainable practices; identify desired future landscapes for increasing ecological functions throughout the park system, set priorities for identifying areas to increase functions and suggest a process for collaboratively working together. This initiative will apply to landscapes in new parks and for rehabilitating specific areas in existing parks. PP&R will select a new park and five areas as demonstration projects and to refine the initiative.
The American Society of Landscape Architect’s Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES 2009) and the New York High Performance Landscape Guidelines (2010) are two examples of comprehensive sustainable landscape programs emphasizing sustainable guiding principles and best practices for parks that were used as references to develop PP&R’s initiative. Examples of best practices include robust site analysis, soil conservation and enhancement, protection of existing vegetation, planting native vegetation, tree protection and replacement, water conservation, stormwater treatment, use of local materials, reduction in herbicides, energy conservation, local food initiatives and stewardship.
The City of Portland has adopted two important citywide plans that address climate change and watershed health. PP&R also developed a Climate Action Plan. These plans are also used as guiding documents for this initiative.
City of Portland and Multnomah County Climate Action Plan (2009) The Climate Action Plan is a “Portland’s roadmap to cut carbon emissions 80% by 2050” compared to 1990 levels. The plan states objectives and actions for achieving the desired outcomes for the Urban Forest and Natural Systems that include: Expand the urban forest canopy to cover one-third of Portland by encouraging public and private tree plantings to increase shade cover, and controlling invasive species At least 50 percent of the total stream and river length in the city meet urban water temperature goals as an indicator of watershed health
The objectives and actions for Food and Agriculture include:
4/28/2014 4 Draft
Significantly increase the consumption of local food Reduce consumption of carbon-intensive foods.
Portland Watershed Management Plan (2005) The Portland Watershed Plan “will guide City decisions and projects by providing a comprehensive approach to restoring watershed health.” The plan identifies six strategies for improving watershed health: 1. Stormwater Management – reduces impervious area, increases infiltration, and removes pollutants. 2. Revegetation – slows runoff, increases infiltration, traps sediments, and absorbs pollutants 3. Aquatic and Terrestrial Enhancement – improves stream flow, recharges groundwater, provides flood storage, reduces heat island effects, provided connectivity, protects biodiversity and provides habitat for native fish and wildlife species. 4. Protection and Policy – preserves remaining natural areas and ensures sustainable development 5. Operations and Maintenance – increases efficiency, reduces waste, and prevents pollution 6. Education, Involvement and Stewardship – enhances public understanding, generates support, and ensures success.
This initiative builds from these efforts to focus on the ecology of landscapes at a system wide level -- the relationship between living organisms and their environment, and the functions and process they provide. This white paper outlines steps to achieve ecologically sustainable landscapes throughout the park system by:
Establishing guiding principles Establishing a framework for understanding ecologically sustainable landscapes Continuing to use existing and outlining new best management practices Developing a limited set of desired future landscape, referred to as a habitat patch Outlining a management process Reinforcing the importance of park staff and public support and education.
4/28/2014 5 Draft
Introduction Watershed Health/Ecosystem Services
“A healthy urban watershed has hydrologic, habitat, and water quality conditions suitable to protect human health, maintain viable ecological functions and processes, and support self-sustaining populations of native fish and wildlife species whose natural ranges include the Portland area.” (2005 Portland Watershed Management Plan p. 41). Watershed health focuses on a systems approach to protect and restore ecological functions in a geographic area defined by a stream and upland conditions. Within the City there are five watersheds: Willamette River, Fanno Creek, Johnson Creek, Columbia Slough and Tryon Creek.
The Sustainable Sites Initiative Guidelines and Benchmarks (2009) defines “Ecosystems services are goods and services of direct or indirect benefit to humans that are produced by ecosystem processes involving the interaction of living elements, such as vegetation and soil organisms, and on-living elements such as bedrock, water and air.” (SITES page 6) The committee and staff of the Guidelines and Benchmarks synthesized the research into a short list that sustainable sites can strive to protect or generate through design, construction and best management practices. For this initiative, the following ecosystem services have been selected from SITES list (p6):
1. Global climate regulation: maintaining balance of atmospheric gases at historic levels, creating breathable air, and sequestering greenhouse gases. 2. Local climate regulation: regulating local temperature, precipitation, and humidity through shading, evapotranspiration, and windbreaks. 3. Air and water cleansing: removing and reducing pollutants in air and water. 4. Water supply and regulation: storing and providing water within watersheds and aquifers. 5. Erosion and sediment control: retain soil within an ecosystem, preventing damage from erosion and siltation. 6. Pollination: providing pollinator species for reproduction of crops and other plants. 7. Habitat functions: providing refuge and reproduction habitat to plants and animals, thereby contributing to conservation of biological and genetic diversity and evolutionary processes. 8. Waste decomposition and treatment: breaking down waste and cycling nutrients. 9. Human health and well-being benefits: enhancing physical mental and social well-being as a result of interaction with nature. 10. Food and renewable non-food products: producing food, fuel, energy medicine, or other products for human use. 11. Cultural benefits: enhancing cultural, education, aesthetic and spiritual experience as a result of interaction with nature.
Guiding Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Landscapes throughout Portland Parks & Recreation
Both The Sustainable Sites Initiative and High Performance Landscape Guidelines; 21st Century Parks for NYC established guiding principles for the development of their sustainable site initiatives. In developing this white paper PP&R modified these principles to establish the following guidelines for ecologically sustainable landscapes for watershed health and specific sites:
1. Site Design or Modifications a. Engage all users – internal and external; be open to contributions from all affected
4/28/2014 6 Draft
parties, working as a team to plan, design, construct, maintain and outreach to the public about ecologically sustainable landscapes b. Offer a diversity of ways to engage with nature c. Strive to preserve or increase the ecosystem services of the site d. Preserve and/or create microclimates to support soils, vegetation and to mediate climate change e. Adopt to demographic and environmental changes 2. Ecology a. Building resiliency in our system for climate change through designing for and modifying existing landscapes to allow for ecological succession b. Protect, restore or regenerate lost or damaged ecosystem services c. Preserve and/or create the complex relationship between soils, vegetation, water and fauna d. Create corridors between individual parks and natural areas than enhances larger-scale ecological functions to promote watershed health e. Increase native vegetation and biological diversity in underutilized or difficult to maintain open spaces to create habitat patches f. Protect and enhance the urban forest 3. Operations and Maintenance a. Include operations and maintenance short and long term practices and costs to assure the landscape will thrive without extensive modifications b. Learn from past problems and ensure they are not repeated c. Continuing to improve water conservation measures, improve soil health and reduce inputs 4. Community a. Foster an ethic of environmental stewardship – healthy ecosystems improves the quality of life for present and future generations b. Create spaces that encourage interaction with nature while protecting ecosystem functions c. Continue to provide opportunity to grow food and enjoy local abundance. d. Continue to connect people to nature
Building upon a sustainable park legacy
In the past 20 years, PP&R has been moving towards more sustainable landscape practices for water conservation, energy conservation, recycling, SalmonSafe certification, integrated pest management (IPM), restoring natural areas, managing the urban canopy and increasing the number of community gardens. Parks staff continue to improve best management practices and look for opportunities to increase ecological function at new and existing parks. This initiative documents the work that is being done, suggests additional practices, sets sites selection criteria for habitat patched and a process for working together.
In 2001, Portland Parks & Recreation formulated a vision statement that states:
“Portland’s parks, public places, natural areas, recreational opportunities give life and beauty to our city. These essential assets connect people to place, self and others. Portland’s residents treasure and care
4/28/2014 7 Draft
for this legacy, building on the past to provide for future generations.” (Parks 2020 Vision)
This strategic initiative advances this vision for ecologically sustainable landscapes. For PP&R the goals are to:
1. Continue to use and refine best management practices to increase soil and plant health, and to reduce inputs (consumption of water resources, fertilizers, herbicides). 2. Extend ecologically sustainable landscape management practices over the entire spectrum of PP&R’s green infrastructure to enhance watershed health; and 3. Design and manage landscapes to enhance ecological function and processes.
Often park landscapes are designed and built in one phase and then expected to be managed to maintain for the original design. However, the fundamental nature of landscapes is change. Creating ecologically sustainable landscapes requires adaptation to this change. This initiative puts forth that establishing ecologically sustainable landscapes is a long-term adaptive process and includes establishing and refining best management practices for turf to natural areas. These best management practices will continue to reduce water use, improve soil health, increase biodiversity, reduce maintenance, connect people to nature, create natural area corridors and increase ecological resiliency. Ecological resiliency allows for our park system to absorb and adapt to change, while retaining the function of a healthy ecosystem and contributing to watershed health.
Enhancing ecological processes builds on many of the established practices used to maintain our park system. Ecologically sustainable landscapes are manifested in healthy soils, a diversity of native plants and wildlife, appropriate plant selection, pollination and seed dispersal, decaying wood, fewer weeds, reduced watering and less mowing. The goals, objectives and strategies in Best Management Practices detail these practice for increasing soil health and plant diversity.
Ecologically sustainable landscapes will be maintained by PP&R staff. They will also provide a continued opportunity to develop partnerships with citizens, stewardship organizations and neighborhood associations who are committed to making a long-term investment in our community and leave a positive legacy for future generations. There will also have to be a change in public understanding that habitat patches in developed parks are safe and maintained. There are number of design strategies that can be used to weave ecology into the fabric of the park system.
Portland’s parks face several long-term risks associated with a loss of ecological resiliency. Urbanization, invasive weeds, climate change and increased populating pressures as more people move to Portland threaten the health of our parks. To reduce these risks, PP&R’s planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance, and public involvement staff need to work collaboratively to identify opportunities to restore ecological processes and functions in new parks and that connect habitat patches in our developed parks to natural areas.
Finally, this paper outlines the foundation for increasing staff and public awareness and education for ecologically sustainable landscape goals to make progress on the issues of safety, aesthetics and balancing people and nature in parks. The basic tenet is that landscape change in parks is financially, socially and economically sustainable and this provides a new legacy for future generations.
4/28/2014 8 Draft
Trail through Forest Park
4/28/2014 9 Draft
Ecological Dynamic Landscapes Enhancing habitat and resiliency
Goal: Continue to use and refine best management practices to increase soil and plant health, and to reduce inputs (consumption of water resources, fertilizers, herbicides).
PP&R has development numerous best management practices (BMP) to reduce water and pesticide use, enrich soil and maintain plant health. These are key components in developing and maintaining ecological processes and functions. Healthy soil and planting the right plant in the right place increase nutrient recycling, and reduces maintenance costs, herbicide use and operation expenses. Continued use and additional BMP will continue to support ecologically sustainable landscapes. BMP supporting soil and plant health are:
A. Soil Health Premise Soil health is the “ability of a soil to perform the functions for its intended use. Soil functions include (USDA NRCS Soil Quality Indicators Fact Sheet September 2009): Sustaining biological diversity, activity, and productivity Regulating water and solute flow Filtering, buffering, degrading organic and inorganic materials Storing and cycling nutrients and carbon Providing physical stability and support. Healthy soil increased the productivity of landscapes by promoting germination, growth rate, size and reproduction of plants. Soils with excessive nitrogen or problems tend to benefit undesirable weed species, require replanting and more maintenance.
Objective: Increase the quantity of beneficial soil life by increasing nutrient cycling as measured by the presence of earthworms and percent of organic matter.
Actions 1. Complete soil testing before taking any action - test soil fertility including pH, organic material percentage, particle gradation, infiltration rates, salinity and groundwater elevation. 2. Evaluate the cost of significantly improving or replacing existing soils when they are in poor condition or fill material. 3. Employ mulch-mowing (leaf and lawn clippings left on the surface). Photo: www.mattforrest.wordpress.com 4. Allow the decomposition of leaves, branches, stumps and logs in plant beds. 5. Incorporate 3 inches of compost certified by the US Composting Council Seal of Testing Assurance (STA) program to the top 12 inches of existing soil.
4/28/2014 10 Draft
6. Apply medium or fine grind bark or wood mulch to planting beds and over newly planted areas. 7. Balance pH with additions of lime to increase nutrient uptake by plants. 8. Tailor nitrogen fertilizer applications to benefit the slower uptake of native plants. 9. Plant an abundance of nitrogen-fixing plants, such as Alnus sp., Myrica sp, and Lupine sp. at sites with poor soils. 10. Reduce soil compaction by not working or driving on wet soils.
B. Right Plant Right Place Premise: Match plants to specific site conditions to increase their vigor and reduce replacement. Replacing these plants is often cost prohibitive and/or socially unacceptable.
Objective: Select and locate plants to match the differing micro- climate and soil conditions for the site.
Actions 1. Coordinate plant selection and location directly with the PP&R staff most familiar with the site. 2. Test soil fertility including pH, organic material percentage, particle gradation, infiltration rates, salinity and groundwater elevation. Based on test results, enrich soil if necessary before planting. 3. Evaluate the cost of significantly altering or replacing existing soils. 4. Cluster plants with the same watering requirements and plan for only three (3) years of irrigation for establishment. 5. Include a multi-year/successional plant lists that takes into account the size of the plant at maturity and adding plants with increased shade.
C. Species Selection Hierarchy Premise: Native plant species are better matched to the lifecycle requirements of native wildlife and are more ecologically desirable.
4/28/2014 11 Draft
Objective: Apply a hierarchical approach to plant selection that prioritizes the use of species based on their historic range. Native cultivars that have the same flower color, flower shape, flower size, leaf color and fruit are equally acceptable. For example, simple dwarf varieties are acceptable. From desirable to less desirable:
1. Willamette Valley 2. Western Oregon, northern California & western Washington 3. Intermountain west
Actions 1. Develop an approved list of climate change-adapted species. Photo: www.bhld.wordpress.com 2. Prioritize plants that: a. Out compete common invasive species and weeds; b. Offer value to a diversity of wildlife; c. Require no irrigation after initial establishment period; d. Offer evergreen cover and winter fruit; and e. Are long-lived.
D. Plant Establishment and Regeneration Premise: Establishing robust ground coverage of new or renovated planting areas inhibits weeds, reduces mulching and provides an abundance of desirable species. Allow desirable plants to reproduce in the landscape.
Objective: Install and allow for the colonization and regeneration of desirable plants. Initial plantings should cover 100% of the ground surface within 3 years.
Actions 1. Identify robust, native species—those than are widely applicable and durable. 2. Use cover crops and other temporary plantings to cover bare soil. 3. Install slower growing species in early phases on the planting plan. Plan for additional plants in Butterfly Park subsequent phases and replacement based on the life-cycle of the dominate vegetation. 4. Reduce risk of weather-related failure by planting or seeding over several seasons or years. 5. Allow for existing plants to regenerate via seed, spouts or other method. 6. Create habitat for native seed-eating birds so they disperse seeds of native plants. 7. Install nurse logs and manipulate micro-topography to increase seed establishment.
E. Plant Diversity Premise: Landscapes with multiple layers of healthy vegetation provide for a larger diversity of habitats than a single layer of plants. A variety of plants increases the biological diversity, more likely
4/28/2014 12 Draft
to be disease resistant and provide a variety of lifecycle resources for native pollinators and wildlife.
Objective: Create a biologically diverse, multi-layer landscape. In planting areas larger than 1,000 square feet, no more than one plant family (grasses, sedge, ferns, roses, willows) is to comprise more than 50% of the plant quantity, no genus is to be more than 40% of the plant quantity and no single species is to comprise more than 30% of the plant quantity.
Actions 1. Tailor planting palette to differences in hydrologic, solar and soil conditions. Maricara Natural Area 2. Cluster shrubs and trees to create varying solar and moisture levels. 3. Create features such as berms, furrows, logs or boulders to alter the micro-climate. 4. Plant a diverse understory of plants and allow them to self-select across different micro sites. 5. Test regionally uncommon plants at a small scale.
F. Summer Irrigation Premise: Reduce or eliminate irrigation after initial plant establishment period (3 years) to continue water savings. Planting areas that are difficult to maintain reduces the acreage that needs to be irrigated or maintained as turf.
Objective: Select plant species adapted to dry summer conditions and that can be established with three (3) summers of irrigation.
Actions 1. Water deeply and infrequently to encourage deep roots. 2. Install smaller size plant material. 3. Plant a diversity of plants that are resilient to drying conditions. 4. Continue to add parks to the central irrigation management system.
G. Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
4/28/2014 13 Draft
Premise: Invasive species, both vegetation and animal, will continue to reduce watershed and ecological health unless properly controlled. Integrated pest management means a coordinated decision-making and action process that uses the most appropriate pest control methods and strategies in an environmentally and economically sound manner to meet pest management objectives. PP&R has a regionally recognized IPM program that has been in place since the late 1980’s. The policies and practices direct every aspect of pest management throughout the park system. Policies and training are updated on a regular basis to respond to new information and challenges.
Objective: Continue IPM program to manage invasive species to maintain and enhance watershed, human, vegetation and animal health.
Actions 1. Continue to focus on eradicating invasive species that are altering ecosystem processes or impeding the long-term succession in ecosystems. 2. Improve soil health through mulching and other methods to reduce the need for herbicide use. 3. Plan and plant the right plant in the right place and mulch to reduce the need for weed control.
Birding on the recently built viewing platform at Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge
4/28/2014 14 Draft
Goal: Extend ecologically sustainable landscape management practices over the entire spectrum of PP&R’s green infrastructure
Underutilized lawns, known problem lawns (soggy, poor soils, shady), existing conifer forests with lawn understory and narrow riparian forest are perhaps the best examples of initial landscape types for increasing the biodiversity and creating habitat patches to increase watershed health. These areas have low recreational and social value relative to their ecological potential. The following are habitat patch types that build resiliency and enhance ecological functions throughout the system:
A. Enhance underutilized lawns & known problem lawns Desired Future Landscape 1. Tall Grass Meadow: Replace underutilized and problem lawns with a tall grass meadow designed to provide beneficial insects for integrated pest management, plant pollination, and increase the diversity of plants. Over time, install or encourage the colonization of beneficial insect plants at a minimum density of 1 plant per 5 square feet. Meadows have no minimum size. Allow the beneficial insect plants to flower and seed before mowing. Vary color, scents, textures, plant height and flowering season. Select plants to attract at least four different families of insects, e.g., solider beetles, big eyed bug and hoverflies. In addition, include at least three different bunchgrasses. Ideal locations include adjacent to riparian to enhance food and nesting material.
2. Pollinator Garden: Install or encourage the colonization of pollinator plants. Gardens are to be a minimum 1/2 acre in size and a maximum 1 mile from an existing pollinator habitat. Install pollinator plants at a minimum density of 1 plant per 5 square feet. The plantings are to have at least three different forage (food) plants within each of the three blooming periods (early spring, spring, and summer) for a total of at least nine different forage plants; and at least six different caterpillar host plants (including one native bunch grass) for a grand total of 15 plants. Ideal locations include adjacent to community gardens, flower beds, and adjacent to natural areas. Photo: www.urbanpollinators.blogspot.com
4/28/2014 15 Draft
3. Conifer Forest and Deciduous Woodland: Plant a multi-layer conifer forest or deciduous woodlands, for example, ash woodland, oak woodland or Douglas-fir forest. Over time install or encourage the colonization of species by planting at least 20 containerized trees and shrubs per acre (avg. 50 feet on-center) to establish the rehabilitation and an understory with layers of vegetation. This includes planting approximately 1500 bare-root trees and shrubs per acre (cost $1.00/plant including labor). Manage for forest regeneration and create a wide spectrum of tree ages and a multi-storied layer, including snags and wood piles. Ideal location are hill slopes, wet areas, hard to mow locations because of entrance/exit and adjacent to natural areas.
B. Existing Conifer Forest Desired Future Landscape 1. Interplant with native species under exiting conifer forests. Over time plant or encourage the colonization of two new trees for every existing tree and a diverse multi-layer understory. Manage for forest regenerate and create a wide spectrum of tree ages, including dead trees and bush piles.
2. Expand existing conifer forest on slopes that are steeper than 5 to 1 or greater than 14 degrees. Over time install or encourage the colonization of at least 20 trees per acre (avg. 50 feet on-center) and a diverse multi-layer understory. Manage for forest regeneration and create a wide spectrum of tree ages, including dead trees that increase the biodiversity, reduce water runoff and provide habitat for native animals.
4/28/2014 16 Draft
C. Existing Riparian Forest Desired Future Landscape Protect and expand the riparian forest within the floodway by installing or encouraging a diverse and layered forest. Where possible, continue planting 90% of the area the 100-year floodplain, assuming that the remaining 10% is will be paths, facilities, and compatible amenities. Manage for riparian functions and process such as shading the stream, adding nutrients to the water and providing habitat for birds and other animals that adjacent to the water.
D. Existing Community Gardens/Urban Farms Desired Future Landscape Access to fresh, healthy, organic food promotes sustainable urban ecology through promotion of organic practices, conserves resources related to food transport and reduces the use of pesticides and herbicides in the environment. Community gardens provided numerous ecological services such a diversity of fruits and vegetables for a variety of pollinators, water infiltration, and soil enrichment through composting that supports necessary microbes and worms. Another ecological service that community gardens provide is assisting the City of Portland reduce carbon emission. Providing land for people to grow local food reducing transportation costs and the carbon intensity of the food chain (Climate Action Plan 2009). They also create community by bringing people together – neighbors, new comers to Portland, and connect cultures and generations through gardening.
PP&R will continue expand gardens and partnerships with public land managers and private landowners to build plots in garden deficient areas and increase the number of plots available to meet the current and future demand. Also, work with individual gardens to plant borders for pollinators.
E. Urban Canopy Desired Future Landscape: Portland’s urban forest consists of approximately 236,000 street trees, 1.2 million park trees, and innumerable private property trees. In 2010, the urban canopy covered 30% of the City. A healthy urban forest provides:
4/28/2014 17 Draft
Improved air through pollutant absorption, releasing oxygen, lowering air temperatures and reducing energy demands; Provide shade for streams needed for improved fish habitat; Wildlife habitat for birds, insects and mammals, increasing biodiversity. Help manage stormwater by reducing soil erosion, intercepting rain, and increasing infiltration; Reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by sequestering carbon and reducing the heating and air conditioning demands of nearby buildings; Improve mental and physical health
PP&R and partners strive to protect and enhance the health of the urban forest through continued tree maintenance and planting. The City continues to refine citywide tree canopy targets and canopy targets by zone (open space, residential, commercial and industrial) classes. To enhance watershed health and ecological function, encourage understory plantings to increase biodiversity and introduce a variety of tree species citywide to build resiliency.
4/28/2014 18 Draft
Example Ecological Landscape in Sequence Elevation drawings showing change over time.
4/28/2014 2 Draft
Goal: Design and manage ecologically sustainable landscapes to increase ecological function and processes. The previous goals are about best management practices and landscape changes, and this goal provides the process for continuing and improving collaboration within Parks and with others. To successfully meet this goal, teams work together to collaboratively make decisions across multiple disciplines for new park development or to select sites for habitat patches. Implementation actions are: 1. Form a multi-disciplinary team at the start of the project that could include the following disciplines depending on the scope: planners, landscape architects ecologists, operations and maintenance, horticulture, urban forestry, community gardens, public involvement and/or community partners such as neighborhood associations. 2. Staff have suggested a single position be created/designated that would facilitate this process and be the arbitrator in decision making. 3. Strive to meet Sustainable Sites Prerequisite 2.2 Use an integrated site development process (Appendix D). 4. The team would continue to work together to adaptively manage the park or habitat patch with team check-ins at years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10.
The steps to collaboratively design, adapt and manage a new park or habitat patch are (each step explained in detail following the list): A. Site Selection –new parks and using the site selection matrix for selecting habitat patches. B. Site Analysis and Inventory – conduct a pre-design assessment and explore opportunities for site sustainability (Sustainable Sites Prerequisite 2.1 Conduct a pre-design site assessment and explore opportunities for site sustainability, modified for PP&R; Site Inventory Guidelines from NYC High Performance Landscape Guidelines) C. Design the Desired Future Landscape, engaging users and stakeholders (Sustainable Sites prerequisite 2.3 Engage Users and other stakeholder in site design, use PP&R Public Involvement Matrix; Ecological Landscape Diagrams) D. Construct a new park or habitat patch to establish or enhance ecological processes, conserve water, increase the urban canopy and/or define areas for growing local food. E. Establish the maintenance plan for the next 1-3, 5, 10, 25 years to meet the ecological goals of the site and project the short and long term costs associated with the plan. F. Feedback Loop/Lessons Learned – continue to work with the team to evaluate if the goals and objectives for the park or habitat patch are met or if modifications need to be made. Incorporate changes into the maintenance plan and in future design processes.
A. Site Selection Ideally, PP&R would inventory the extent and conditions of passive open space, shrub beds, woodlands, and forests to prioritize habitat patch placement to increase ecological resiliency and/or function throughout the system. Until the inventory is completed, the following matrix provides a set of criteria to select habitat patches in new or existing parks and in ranking potential sites. The selection criteria are based on connectivity to natural areas (building resiliency and increasing function), creating natural area corridors, effectiveness, and public support.
Table 1: Site Selection Criteria
Habitat Patch Selection Criteria High Low Desirability Desirability 1. Proximity to existing natural areas connected <1/2 mile >1/2 mile 2. Proximity to already restored areas connected <1/2 mile >1/2 mile 3. Adjacent to or infill within existing native veg. infill adjacent no 4. Physical extent of rehabilitation area >1 ac 0.25-1ac <.25 acres 5. Underutilized or problematic area yes n/a no 6. Connected to existing natural areas corridors 2+ 1 0 7. Linked to green street or greenway yes in future no possibility 8. Cost of installation, maintenance and monitoring low medium high 9. Stream and wetlands Within park adjacent Not connected 10. Restoration/enhancement method Natural succession Managed succession restoration 11. Ability of project to be applied across park system high medium low 12. Public/stakeholder support high medium low 13. Stewardship plan yes in future no possibility 14. Visibility high medium low 15. Education and research program yes in future no possibility
A GIS analysis using criteria 1-X and sorted by watershed, indicates that the best sites for ecological rehabilitation at existing parks are:
B. Site Analysis and Inventory For new parks and habitat patches, complete an assessment to document the site’s history, context, conditions and analysis (NYC Checklist pages 19-27). The analysis will be the basis for developing the design, best management practices and ecological sustainable components. Key Steps 1. Modify the NYC site analysis checklist and use the evaluation to identify challenges and opportunities for rehabilitation. Use the PP&R Salmon Safe Checklist for design and the checklist for more detailed information to plan and design ecological resiliency and function.
4/28/2014 2 Draft
2. Perform the initial site analysis; review and synthesize site analysis information.
C. Design and Desired Future Landscape Set the desired future ecological landscape for the park or habitat patch with the project team. Working as a team set schedules, and evaluate design iterations required to agree on a successional, long-term landscape.
Key Steps 1. Select future ecological landscape and objectives. 2. Develop immediate and long term planting and maintenance actions to achieve at specific milestones, (1 -3, 5, 10 & 25 years). 3. Define roles for development of design, construction, maintenance, monitoring and stewardship plans to install and maintain the desired ecological functions and processes in the landscape. 4. Select and/or develop ecological landscape strategies illustrating and describing ecological succession. 5. Prioritize goals and strategies to anticipate staffing and budget needs to implement and maintain the landscape.
D. Construction/Installation This phase coordinates and communicates construction methods and changes. Many decisions are made during construction and installation. It is essential the team stay involved. Change orders, requests for information, substitutions and field orders can create knowledge gaps between the final design and the constructed landscape.
Key Steps for new parks and habitat patches 1. Team attendance at the pre-construction meeting 2. Review addenda, change orders, field orders and changes during a weekly on-site construction meeting 3. Attend final punch list site visit. 4. Review as-built drawings, gather contactors operational information and warranties. 5. Convene a “lessons learned” meeting to evaluate the success of the design and construction process.
Key Steps for habitat patches 1. Attend on-site field meeting to review proposed changes 2. Project lead send out updates on progress 3. Attend periodic construction meetings and final installation review 4. Convene a “lessons learned” meeting to evaluate the success of the design and installation process.
4/28/2014 3 Draft
E. Maintenance Plan Establish capital budget, maintenance plan and budget for years 1, 3, 5, and 10 that establishes the ecological trajectory for the site. Maintenance plan includes: 1. Irrigation, if needed, through the duration of the project. For most projects irrigation should only be up to three (3) years. 2. Implement the interplanting plan on schedule to continue to meet the ecological trajectory. 3. Thin and prune according to established schedule 4. Continue to soil test and add soil enhancements to meet plant replacements.
F. Feedback Loop/Lessons Learned This step allows the project team and others to learn from, and adapt policies and practices for design, installation and maintenance. This phase emphasizes long-term participation by the project team in monitoring, evaluating progress, modifying practices and planning for future actions. The systematic recording of changes to the landscape and the necessity to change practices in response are at the core of managing ecological landscapes. Unforeseen challenges are certain to occur and team members should collaborate on these issues as well.
Through a series of early action projects PP&R staff would refine and develop best management practices and standards that could be used across the system and modified to account for site-specific characteristics. These practices and standards will help understand actions and costs associated with creating habitat patches at existing and new parks to improve ecological function and managing for succession.
Key Steps 1. Develop a feedback/lesson learned form to be used by the project team. 2. Make modifications to best management practices to meet the desired future landscape. 3. Record practices and changes to achieve the desired future landscape. 4. Review and modify policies and design criteria. 5. Plan for the implementation of future design and installation. 6. Evaluation/Measurement – Survey participants at the end of design, construction, 2 and 5 years after project installation.
4/28/2014 4 Draft
Evaluation/Measurement Measuring success of ecologically sustainable landscapes
PP&R measures to help gauge progress towards desired outcomes. The following are methods and targets to collect and evaluate information for measuring PP&R’s progress on meeting the goals and action to increase and enhance ecologically sustainable landscapes.
1. Collaboration/Teamwork Use SITES Prerequisite 2.2 Use an integrated site development process (Appendix D) for team from integration from planning through maintenance. Develop a project team survey to be completed after the design, construction and 5-year installation stages to determine level of satisfaction with the process including staff understanding the status of their input.
Target: Staff rate each stage of the process as satisfactory or above.
2. Create habitat patches from underutilized lawns & known problem lawns and conifer forest The estimated cost of converting an acre of turf to a diverse landscape dominated by native plants is $1,500/acre using bare root stock and adding 10% (150 one gallon) container trees, shrubs and planting costs for additional $ 850 for a total of approximately $2,350/ acre. Larger trees and shrubs are added to create a sense of scale and anchor the rehabilitation site.
In general it is a 5 year process to change the landscape from turf to an ecological trajectory towards a function habitat patch: Site preparation for two years - placement of wood chips over the site to build soils Planting in year three by volunteers, contractor or staff from Horticultural Services Monitoring, invasive species control and replanting if necessary in the next two years.
Measure: Acres or square feet planted in habitat patches – target two (2) acres per year for the first five (5) years to evaluate costs, staff time, and acceptance by the public and PP&R personal. Set new targets for conversion based on information gathered during the previous five years for the next ten years.
3. Riparian Habitat Enhancement Plant the floodway to increase riparian habitat functions. The floodway is defined as “the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot.” The floodway is defined and depicted on Flood Insurance Rate Map. For unidentified watercourses, the floodway should be a minimum of 15 feet. Where possible, plant the mapped floodplain as defined by the channel of watercourse and adjacent land areas which are subject to inundation by the base flood.
Within in Parks there is a total of XX linear feet of floodway. Broken down by watershed and rehabilitation priority, there are: Watershed by Total linear Developed Parks Natural Areas Priority feet
4/28/2014 5 Draft
Columbia Slough Johnson Creek Tryon Creek Fanno Creek Willamette River
Measure/Target: Measure linear feet of riparian habitat planted and established - XX linear feet per five years based on the mapped floodway and priorities within parks property.
4. Tall grass meadows Allowing grass to grow and seed provides food, nesting material and habitat for a variety of bird and small mammal species. In 2005 the Turf Maintenance Group identified approximately 135 acres to mow once month (meadow mowing) after budget cuts reduced staff. The identified sites are not irrigated, heavily treed, on steep slopes and/or wet, making these areas difficult to mow. Mowing equipment is still used to maintain these areas. The Turf Maintenance Group also has a few acres where they mow two or three times per year (tall grass meadow mowing). A tractor with a frailer attached is used instead of mower. Examples of tall grass meadow mowing are areas at Columbia Children’s Arboretum, Peninsula Crossing Trail and areas within Forest Park.
The ideal locations for tall grass meadows are adjacent to riparian areas to increase the habitat functions for wildlife.
Target: Identify five parks to introduce tall grass meadows from the areas identified for once a month mowing and if possible within the floodplain or adjacent to riparian or natural area to enhance the habitat.
5. Pollinator gardens Pollinator plants are being planted in grasslands managed by City Nature at Powell Butte Nature Park and Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge. There are opportunities to introduce pollinator gardens in specific areas that enhance habitat functions and not adversely impact adjacent activities. Opportunities include planting beds, adjacent to community gardens, natural areas and stormwater facilities. For example pollinator plants bordering community gardens are compatible uses. Adams, Gabriel and Johns community gardens are interested in installing pollinator plantings. A location and condition inventory of planting beds needs to be completed and then horticulture staff could identify beds to be planted and maintained as pollinator gardens.
Target: Plant five pollinator gardens in the next three years. Work with stewards and Xerces Society to plan, plant and monitor the gardens for key pollinators. If successful, continue to plant two pollinator gardens per year for the next ten years.
6. Community Garden PP&R added over 1000 new community garden plots in the last four years. Currently we use 21 acres of land to grow local food in 50 gardens and over 2200 plots. Most garden has two ADA accessible areas that include raised beds and crushed rock. Other sections of the garden have wood chip pathways and in-ground pathways. Despite recent growth, garden plots are in high demand and there are over 1400 people waiting for a plot. The Community Garden Program is
4/28/2014 6 Draft
looking to fill the gaps in the city to ensure equitable access to gardening. The first step is to identify garden deficient areas, high density areas and areas with high demand and then plan for building new gardens. The program is also working on ensuring that plots are actively gardened and productive. The program is targeting adding one new garden each year, if resources are available, so that there is more equitable access to land for growing locally produce food.
Continue to provide opportunities within the urban environment for people to organically grow their own food or food for others on publically and privately owned lands.
Target: Add a minimum of one garden per year over the next 10 years.
7. Urban canopy cover The protection and enhancement of the urban forest requires continual maintenance, replanting and shared stewardship along with increased resources. Documenting the health and condition of the forest over time reveals trends and provides consistent measurements to evaluate program effectiveness. An important measure of urban forest health is canopy cover. PP&R develop a monitoring protocol for measuring urban canopy change in 2012. Using point interpretation of aerial photos (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/403426), PP&R measured the canopy cover as 27.3% in 2000, 28% in 2005, and 29.9% in 2010. Citywide canopy cover increased by 2.6% which translate into 2,384 acres of canopy from 2000 to 2010. The next measurement will be in 2015. In fiscal year 2011-2012 (July 1 through June 30th) the following trees were planted throughout the City (Urban Forestry Action Plan, 2012 Implementation Update, February, 2013): Urban Forestry issued permits for 8,129 street and park trees and 2,458 street trees to property owners and developers. Bureau of Environmental Services Grey to Green Program planted 5, 402 street trees and 2,381 yard trees in partnership with Friends of Trees and others. On Parks property 191 large-caliper trees wither planted, predominately as replacements for trees lost. 2,196 trees were permitted to be removed for development or the tree was dead/dying. There was a ratio of 3.6 of street tree planted to removals. The 2007 Portland’s Urban Forestry Canopy Assessment and Public Tree Evaluation looked at the rates of stocking and health of the urban canopy: Street tree stocking levels reflects the percentage of potential planting spaces within the street rights-of-ways that are currently occupied by trees. The stocking rate average is 45% citywide. Overall the forest canopy is in good health (63.9% street trees; 87.8% park trees). Street trees live in a harsher environment and are often poorly pruned to maintain electrical lines. Measure/Target: Establish yearly, 5- year, and 10-year stocking targets for street and park trees. Set-up a tracking database. Reach the urban canopy target of 33% by 2030 (Climate Action Plan). Set interim goals based on stocking rates. Establish tree health monitoring program that measures health every ten years to ensure the canopy remains healthy.
4/28/2014 7 Draft
Diversify street tree species to build resiliency and plant for climate change.
8. Continued reduction in summer irrigation PP&R started using a centralized water measurement system (MAXICOMTM) in 1993. To date, 78 parks are on-line so that water flow is continually measured and landscape irrigation is based on plant/crop types, soil moisture and daily weather calculations. The MAXICOMTM system is a budget item for all new parks. However, Irrigation Services is not funded to add sites. Instead funding for adding existing parks is through grants and capital renovation projects. Irrigation Services general supplies budget does covers the cost of components repairs on a limited basis. As the system ages, the first installations are 20 years old, these systems are reaching the end of their life cycle and will need to be replaced.
With the installation of a centralized flow measurement and weather based system, water used for irrigation on average is reduced 30%. The goal is to continue to reduce water use to 50%. To achieve this goal, more training and time is needed for field staff to adjust sprinkler heads to optimum watering locations (ensure water is going to the target landscape), plant materials with similar water needs for establishment are grouped together, additional native plants installed that have a lower water demand and that the soil health is optimized at time of planting.
In addition to MAXICOMTM, water meters measure water use and at some parks groundwater wells are installed for irrigation. PP&R uses the information from the water bills to evaluate use at individual sites; however, it is not possible to measure the water that is used for landscape maintenance separate from other park amenities such as splash pools and bathrooms. Use of groundwater is not measured. To have a more complete understanding of water use and reduction, PP&R needs to establish a system wide method to measure and reduce all water applied to the landscape.
Target: Over the next 10 years, PP&R will have all warranted facilities with irrigation controlled by MAXICOMTM or similar system(s), bringing 3 parks on line per year with available funding. Measure: Total water use for landscape maintenance and set reduction targets for the system.
9. Soil health There are soil indicators and numerous methods for measuring physical, chemical and biological functions. One method that is fairly simple is measuring the bulk density of the soil. Bulk density is an indicator of soil compaction and is calculated as the dry weight of soil per unit volume of soil. Ideal bulk density depends on the soil type (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Quality Indicators, Bulk Density). NRCS USDA recommends using the Cylindrical Core Method. Bulk density should be below 1.55 to 1.6 g/cm3 to promote root growth.
Another indicator of soil health is earthworm density (USDA NRCS Soil Quality Indicators Earthworms). Earthworms live in the litter and top soil, burrow down to feed on plant residues and their casts is enriched with nutrients. They are abundant in mulched, moist soils with a pH between 5-8. NRCS recommends that earthworms be measured in numbers/foot cubed using. A count of 10 earthworms/meter squared in agricultural fields and native soil is considered good.
Measure: The bulk density and earthworm counts should be tested during the site analysis,
4/28/2014 8 Draft
before planting and three years after planting. Soil amendments should be added and/or aeration to bring the bulk density into the proper range for plan success. To increase earthworms, add mulch and compost.
4/28/2014 9 Draft
Park Staff and Public Acceptance and Education Integrating ecologically sustainable landscapes into parks
Integrating habitat patches into parks provides multiple and deliberate set of experiences that allow people to enjoy them. Applying cultural cues of care to for habitat patches can protect these resources and increase appreciation for them. The application of these strategies is strongly context dependent.
A. Orderly Frames Premise: Creating an orderly perimeter around habitat patches visually frames the interior of the area and makes it more socially acceptable.
Actions 1. Mow edges of pathways to frame habitat patches. 2. Create an orderly perimeter of shrubs, perhaps ones with pleasing ornamental qualities. 3. Hedge perimeter of shrub thickets, which are valuable bird habitat. 4. Incorporate some large-flowering species because they tend to appear less weedy than small-flowering plants. 5. Install fencing to frame and protect habitat patches 6. Mow trails and use zones around picnic table and Photo: www.mattforrest.wordpress.com benches.
B. Planting Arrangement Premise: Appropriate plant spacing and clear patterns effectively translates on the accepted appearance of passive open space to habitat patch.
Actions 1. Plant in large drifts and massings or rows to visually organize plants. 2. Install plants in grouping of three, five, seven or larger odd-numbered groups. 3. Layer smaller plants in front and larger plants in the back. 4. Install plants at appropriate spacing to ensure landscapes don’t appear cluttered or sparse. Photo: polleygardendesign.wordpress.com 5. Maintain area over time.
4/28/2014 10 Draft
C. Boardwalks, Buffers & Overlooks Premise: The deliberate and careful separation of human use and habitat patches emphasizes the importance of protecting these areas.
Actions 1. Border habitat patches with passive recreation to limit impacts of human activity. 2. Build boardwalks to indicate the presence of sensitive ground and vegetation. 3. Provide overlooks into habitat patches instead of providing paths that cut through them to maintain habitat contiguity and indicate special protection. Photo: www.tedvillaire.com.
D. Ecological Art & Interpretation Premise: Ecological art and interpretation have an important role in revealing the ecological processes that are underway in parks.
Actions 1. Install art that speaks to the ecological value of the landscape. 2. Use interpretive signage to educate visitors about the purpose of the different types of landscapes in parks and to help develop an appreciation for them. 3. Use signs or other means to identify habitat patches as research sites to give them purpose in otherwise less deliberate landscapes. Photo: Hubert Besacier in Art in Nature,
4/28/2014 11 Draft
E. Wildlife Enhancements Premise: Providing supplemental wildlife structures in appropriate habitat patches.
Actions 1. Install bird houses and platforms. 2. Install bat houses. 3. Install lady bug houses near gardens
Photo: Jessica King
Building a new ecological landscape legacy To build public and staff support for Ecologically Sustainable Landscape initiative, PP&R will need to involve staff and the public to work with them to understand and initiate change throughout the park system. The following are a list of actions to involve and inform staff and the public:
1. Convene internal work sessions to refine messaging regarding purpose and benefit of the initiative. a. Meet with staff whose work is most affected by the change to get their input on public communication. b. Anticipate concerns of citizens and partner organizations. c. Develop concise statements of purpose and benefits. d. Develop branding for this initiative.
2. Engage in a public education campaign to communicate issues and help set priorities for parks. a. Include neighborhood association and park committees in location of habitat patches and their up keep. b. Create a webpage and have a section for comments and input.
3. Build a coalition of stewards to assist in planting and long-term maintenance of habitat patches. a. Articulate the need for long-term stewardship of ecological management and maintenance. b. Identify methods for acknowledging/rewarding the involvement of stewards and partners in parks. c. Tailor the goals of individual projects to the goals of partner organizations d. Bolster PP&R staffing for stewardship coordination. e. Use adopt-a-park model. Focus on business or organizations near the park. f. Host annual “park day” to install plants, weed and care for habitat patches.
4. Partner with scientific and management communities to perform monitoring work. a. Coordinate monitoring goals with capabilities of citizen scientist organizations,
4/28/2014 12 Draft
universities, high schools and other organizations. b. Develop a PP&R webpage to enter monitoring information and performance standards. c. Fund monitoring and evaluation of ecological landscapes.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Implementing the actions to enhance ecologically sustainable landscapes and practices at new and existing parks will assist the City in meeting watershed health, climate change and PP&R Vision 2020 goals. To implement the initiative, it will require: PP&R staff working on projects across multi-disciplines to successfully plan, design, construct and maintain projects; Additional and/or modifying staff responsibilities and funding resources, including a cost analysis of current management versus new approach; Working with staff and park users to accept the proposed changes through an outreach and education program; Continue and develop partnerships with universities and scientific communities to assist with the implementation and monitoring; Take a long view; starting with five to 10 demonstration habitat patches in new or existing parks in the first five years to evaluate and understand implementation costs, staff time and ecological lift and then upscale enhancements based on the information learned from the initial projects. Successional landscapes develop over 5-25 years. Conduct a system-wide inventory of passive open space to gain a better understanding of uses and possibilities for creating habitat patches.
Intended outcomes of this initiative include two subsequent initiatives that address how new parks are developed with ecologically sustainable landscapes and how opportunity areas in existing parks are transformed over time to an enhanced ecological process and functions while still providing for recreation, and programs in the next 30 to 50 years.
Otter Family at Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge
4/28/2014 13 Draft
Appendix A: Initiative Process
Stakeholder Interviews Stakeholder interviews were conducted with people who have an understanding of parks and recreation design, program and maintenance.
Some major themes and strategies from these interviews include:
Sustainability All aspects of sustainability are important and interdependent: ecological, social and economic. Barriers to ecological park landscapes include budget, need for safety and CPTED Take a whole system approach. Consider life time cost of ownership. Suitability requires sustained efforts and funding, often with a short term infusion of cash with sustained efforts resulting in long term rewards. Frame ecological benefits through the ecological services paradigm.
Ecological Principles and Assumptions Soils are incredibly important. For example, Battery Park City in New York is known for its soil management. Parks are not wilderness; they are semi-natural and disturbed ecosystems. In the NW old growth forests (a likely desired future condition) are driven by aspect. NE and SW and higher and lower elevation slopes have different kinds of old growth forests. NE is wetter and coniferous, SW and higher on the ridgelines is dryer and maple and lower SW slopes are oak. Ecological richness is a factor of connectivity and biodiversity at a regional scale as well at a site scale. Invasive plants are bad for stormwater due to shallower root systems and no layers for canopy. The capillary action is lost. Soil ecology also suffers under the monoculture of invasive plants. Most soil is not a native soil with non-native fungus and other introduced microbes, how can one expect native plants to perform well in non-native soils? New trees should be planted in groves where leaf litter can be left to regenerate the soil.
Design Parks are an opportunity to demonstrate green infrastructure. Maintenance staff needs to be involved in the design process from the beginning. Horticulturists need to part of design and planning conversations early on. Regenerative landscapes need to be considered. Ask a series of ecological questions about site developments during the planning process.
4/28/2014 14 Draft
o Context - what larger system is the site connected to? o Water – where does it come from? What condition does it arrive in? Where does it go? What condition does it leave in? o Ecology - What lives here? What used to live here? What could live here now? o Materials – Where does it come from? What’s being brought in? What are the inputs to maintain it and build it? o Maintenance – What efforts to keep it functioning? Who many mows? Weeds? Fertilizers? Pesticides? Change requires a shift in aesthetics of the park landscape in parks and in the public. Address public perception issues. Including a diversity of species is important for urban environment. Maintenance Retain biomass on site Mulching is hugely beneficial Portland Parks IPM program is incredibly successful and a useful model for addressing ecological sustainability. It is process oriented and tailored to Portland Parks, and focuses on truth on the ground. IPM process forces parks to questions everything done in maintenance: Why are we doing this? What would happen if we didn’t? Are there things that can be done instead? What is the gain? Core Team
A core team representing different sectors of PP&R staff was established as an advisory team. The project manager and consultant led these meetings and completed the report and recommendations with the guidance of the core team. The role of the core team was also one of ambassadorship. They not only represented their work groups and departments in team discussions, but also served as ambassadors of the ecologically sustainable initiative to their work groups and departments as the process moves forward.
Many of the stakeholder meetings confirmed that one of the biggest barriers to sustainable practices is in the disconnection of maintenance and horticulture staff and the design process. The creation of this core team with representatives from both specialties was the first step in creating a realistic approach to improved ecological function throughout the entire parks system.
The meeting plan was structured to allow the group to self-educate. In the first meeting the team was asked to explore the ideas of ecological landscapes in parks and the sustainable maintenance of those landscapes. In the second meeting several core group members gave short descriptions of their work and how it relates to sustainable landscapes. The team brainstormed practices that are currently working well and those that can be improved. In the third meeting the group was presented with a draft of the ecological landscape goal and performance goals and a discussion on those items followed. In the fourth meeting a final presentation on the report was made and the groups gave their final recommendations to PP&R.
Research Throughout this process research was conducted by the consultant and project managmer. Those documents are listed in the Select References section in the appendix.
4/28/2014 15 Draft
Appendix B: Glossary
Assembly rules Predictions concerning mechanisms of plant community organization
Biodiversity Number and distribution of species, genes, and ecosystems, enhances certain ecosystem services
Climate change Gradual change in earth’s temperatures, rainfall and other meteorological traits due to human activities
Climax vegetation Vegetation that has reached a stable state
Competition The negative influence of one species on another due to the sharing of limited resources
Dispersal The process by which an organism or is reproductive units are transferred from their place of origin to another location
Disturbance A relatively discrete event in time and space that alters habitat structure and often involves a loss in biomass
Ecological resilience The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks
Ecological Latitude The maximum amount a system can be changed before losing its ability to recover (before crossing a threshold which, if breached, makes recovery difficult or impossible).
Ecological Resistance The ease or difficulty of changing the system; how “resistant” it is to being changed.
Ecological Integrity The degree in which an ecosystem is operating within the bounds of its historic range of variation
Ecological Adaptability The capacity of people to manage for resilience in an ecological system to
Ecological succession The observed process of change in the species structure of an ecological community over time
4/28/2014 16 Draft
Fragmentation The biogeographic process of dividing a landscape, as through urbanization
Functional group Species that share physiological, morphological or behavior traits
Habitat patch A relatively well defined and homogeneous area that provides habitat for species
Habitat corridor An area of habitat connecting wildlife populations separated by human activities such as roads or development
Intermediate disturbance The hypothesis that maximum diversity is obtained at an intermediate level of disturbance
Lifecycle requirements The environmental conditions that is required in order for a species to move through birth, growth, reproduction and death.
Mature ecosystem A well-developed ecosystem in which the rate of biomass accumulation and of species turnover is slow
Mutualism A biotic interaction among different species that is beneficial to both
Nurse plant An established individual that alters its immediate surroundings in ways that favor the establishment of another plant
Nurse Log A fallen tree which, as it decays, it provides ecological facilitation to seedlings.
Nutrient Cycling Process by which nutrients become available to plants. Nutrient cycling in natural environments relies upon healthy community of decomposers within the soil
Performance goals The part of a rehabilitation project that specifies the criteria that will define success.
Pioneer species A plant that colonizes a disturbed area thereby initiating succession
Pollination vectors Abiotic or biotic factors that transfer pollen; wind, insects, birds are the most common
4/28/2014 17 Draft
Primary productivity Production of plant biomass
Priority effects The consequence of arrival order that conditions subsequent compositional changes
Refugia Isolated patches that escape disturbance and so provides a suitable habitat for relict species
Regeneration niches Microsites that satisfy germination and establishment requirements
Restoration To restore a site to its original condition
Rehabilitation To repair ecosystem processes, productivity and service, but does not necessarily mean a return to pre- existing biotic conditions
Relict species A species surviving in a refuge within a large newly created landscape
Restoration Returning the land to its former biological status
Safe-site A microsite where seeds have an enhance chance to lodge, germinate and establish
Soil food web The community of organisms living all or part of their lives in the soil
Stress Any factor that limits the rate of productivity (e.g. infertility, drought, cold heat, toxicity)
4/28/2014 18 Draft
Appendix C: Selected References
American Society of Landscape Architects, Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center at the University of Texas at Austin, United States Botanic Garden (2009) The Sustainable Sites Initiative: The Case For Sustainable Landscapes.
Boland, Michael (2001) Ecological Parks: A talk at the SPUR Citizen Planning Institute. SPUR newsletter: http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/ecologicalparks06012001.
Cook, M. William et al. (2005) Secondary Succession in an Experimentally Fragmented Landscape: Community Patterns Across Space and Time. Ecology: Vol. 86, No. 5, pp.1267-1279.
Cranze, Galen and Michael Boland (2004) Defining the Sustainable Park: A Fifth Model for Urban Parks. Landscape Journal Vol.23, No.2, pp. 102-120.
D’Antonio, Carla and Laura A. Meyerson (Dec.2002) Exotic Plant Species as Problems and Solutions in Ecological Restoration: A Synthesis. Restoration Ecology Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 703–713.
Franklin, Jerry F.; Hemstrom, Miles A. (1981) Aspects of succession in the coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest: chapter 14. In: West, Darrell C.;Shugart, Herman H.; Botkin, Daniel B., eds. Forest succession: concepts and application. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Gale, Richard P. and Sheila M Cordary (1994) Making Sense of Sustainability: Nine Answers to ‘What Should be Sustained. Rural Sociology Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 311-332.
Horton, Lindsey (May 2005) Intervention in Succession a Method for Applying Succession Theory in Landscape Design with a Focus on Vegetation Succession in Western Washington. Masters of Science in Landscape Architecture, Washington State University, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture. Self-published.
Huston, Michael and Thomas Smith (Aug.1987) Plant Succession: Life History and Competition. The American Naturalist. Vol. 130, No. 2, pp.168-198.
Johnson, David H. and Thomas A. O'Neil (2001) Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.
Krueger-Mangold, Jane M., Sheley, Roger L. and Tony J. Svejcar (2006) Toward Ecologically-based Invasive Plant Management on Rangeland. Weed Science: Vol. 54, pp. 597-605.
Luken, J.O. (1990). Directing Ecological Succession. New York: Chapman & Hall.
McDonald, David K. (December 1999) Ecologically Sound Lawn Care for the Pacific Northwest Findings from the Scientific Literature and Recommendations. Turf Professionals. Community Services Division, Resource Conservation Section, Seattle Public Utilities.
Nassauer, Joan Iveson (Fall 1995) Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames. Landscape Journal Vol. 14 No.2, pp. 161-17.
New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (2010) A Plan for Sustainable Practices within NYC Parks. New York City, New York.
4/28/2014 19 Draft
New York City Department of Parks and Recreation and Design Trust for Public Space (2010) High Performance Landscape Guidelines, 21st Century Parks for NYC. New York City, New York.
Picket, S.T.A., Cadenasso, M.L. and Bartha S. (2001) Implications from the Buell-Small Succession Study for Vegetation Restoration. Applied Vegetation Science Vol. 4 pp. 41-52. Sweden: Opulus Press Uppsala.
Prach, Karel and Richard J. Hobbes (2008) Spontaneous Succession versus Technical Reclamation in the Restoration of Disturbed Sites. Restoration Ecology Vol. 16, No.3, pp.363-366.
Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. 2005 Portland Watershed Management Plan. Portland, Oregon.
Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. 2011-2013 Strategic Plan. Portland, Oregon.
Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (2009) Climate Action Plan 2009. Portland and Multnomah County, Oregon.
Portland Parks and Recreation (2001) Parks 2020 Vision Plan. Portland, Oregon.
Portland Parks and Recreation (2007) Sustainability Plan. Portland, Oregon.
Portland Parks and Recreation. Parks and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED), Portland, Oregon.
Portland Parks and Recreation (2013). Maintenance Standards 2013. Portland, Oregon.
Portland Parks and Recreation. Strategic Plan: 2012-2015. Portland, Oregon.
Portland Parks & Recreation (2011) Integrated Pest Management Program Overview. Portland, Oregon.
Portland Parks & Recreation (2012) Portland Parks & Recreation Sustainability Highlights Sustainable City Government Report. Portland, Oregon.
Portland Parks & Recreation, Noble, Sally ed. (2012) Sustainable City Government Report. Portland, Oregon.
Salmon-Safe Inc. (2010). Salmon-Safe Park & Natural Area Certification Standards. Portland, Oregon.
Roger L. Sheley, Jeremy J. James, and Erin C. Bard (2009) Augmentative Restoration: Repairing Damaged Ecological Processes During Restoration of Heterogeneous Environments. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2:10–21.
Truman P. Young, Jonathan M. Chase and Russell T. Huddleston (2001) Community Succession and Assembly, Comparing, Contrasting and Combining Paradigms in the Context of Ecological Restoration Ecological Restoration Vol. 19, No. 1.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2001) Soil Quality Test Kit Guide. Soil Quality Institute.
4/28/2014 20 Draft
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2009) Soil Quality Indicators Earthworms.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2009) Soil Quality Indicators Bulk Density.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (2009) Soil Quality Indicators Physical, Chemical and Biological Indicators for Soil Quality Assessment and Management.
Walker R., Lawrence and Roger Del Moral (2003) Primary Succession and Ecosystem Rehabilitation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walker, R. Lawrence, Walker, Joe and Richards J Hobbes ed. (2007) Linking Restoration and Ecological Succession. New York: Springer.
Washington Department of Ecology (2005) Guidelines and Resources for Implementing Soil Quality and Depth BMP T5.13, Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Field Guide to Verifying Soil Quality and Depth in New Landscapes. www.soilsforSalmon.org.
Wilson, Mark V. and Deborah L. Clark (1994-1997) FINAL REPORT Effects of Fire, Mowing, and Mowing with Herbicide on Native Prairie of Baskett Butte, Baskett Slough NWR. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Oregon Refuges, Order No. 13590-6-0112.
4/28/2014 21 Draft
Appendix D: SITES Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks 2009 http://www.sustainablesites.org/report/Guidelines%20and%20Performance%20Benchmarks_2009.pdf
4/28/2014 22 Draft